Legal precedent stems from Temecula crime

RIVERSIDE —— By upholding the July 2001 conviction of a Temecula
man for carjacking an employee during a jewelry store robbery, the
state appellate court has set a legal precedent that expands the
definition of the crime.

When Victor Maurice Hoard robbed the Temecula Jewelry Mart on
Ynez Road in 1999, he also took the keys of one of the two women
working inside, then fled in her car with an estimated $90,000 in
jewelry.

In July 2001, a Riverside County jury convicted Hoard of the
robbery, along with kidnapping and carjacking. Two months later,
Hoard received a prison sentence of 45 years to life.

He appealed the conviction and the state's 4th District Court of
Appeal agreed with the jury regarding the robbery and the
carjacking, but overturned the kidnapping conviction, saying it was
"'merely incidental' to the robbery to confine the women in the
back of the store.

In response to the overturned kidnapping conviction, Superior
Court Judge Robert McIntyre restructured Hoard's sentence during a
hearing last week at the Hall of Justice in Riverside. Hoard's
sentence of 45 years to life remains the same, but the main count
he was sentenced on became the robbery instead of the
kidnapping.

The California Supreme Court has already declined to review the
findings of the appellate court, meaning the rulings stand.

The appellate court's ruling upholding the carjacking conviction
allows prosecutors to look at the crime a bit differently than
before.

"This is setting new case law in California," said Deputy
District Attorney John Davis, who prosecuted Hoard.

"This (ruling) will hopefully allow prosecutors to be more free
to file cases as carjackings when they might not have before,"
Davis said.

Typically, in cases like this where the assailant takes the
victim's keys by force and later drives off in their car, the
suspect would be charged with vehicle theft.

"Car theft has one of the lowest state prison terms while
carjacking is one of the most serious crimes and can carry a death
penalty if someone is killed," Davis said.

The veteran prosecutor said he believes a victim can be just as
traumatized when forced violently to turn over their keys, not just
their car.

Hoard's defense attorney said Friday that, even though this case
has set a precedent in California, there is still some gray
area.

"The issue will always be how close the person is to their car,"
Deputy Public Defender Eric Keen said. "This is going to allow for
a lot of inconsistent verdicts by jurors.

"It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out."

The law pertaining to carjacking states that it is the taking of
a vehicle from a person or immediate presence, against their will
by force or fear.

Hoard appealed the carjack conviction on the basis that he
didn't take the woman's car from her immediate presence.

The justices, in their opinion published in November 2002, said:
"Although not the 'classic' carjacking scenario, it was a
carjacking all the same."